gb hill
Mentor
I might agree with the not apologizing, but not explaining! I don't agree with. You should always be kind & ready to give an answer for what you are doing! Photographers get in trouble when they develop this superiority (cocky) attitude when confronted by someone, esp. police! We are living in a new day! People ARE living in fear! I feel sorry for them, but they do have as much right to ask what you are doing on the streets as we do taking photos on the streets. This isn't saying we should back down & let them win over you. I'm saying when you are confronted use your head. When you speak kindness you usually win!
rdeleskie
Well-known
Thank God I live in the great socialist, big government state of Canada. I've seen very little of this nonsense here in Toronto. Once, a PDO asked me to stop taking pictures of a film shoot. I was about to explain to him my rights, but decided it wasn't worth it. I walked around the corner, snapped my photo and that was it. On the weekends, I've seen amateurs walking around with big DSLRs dangling from their necks all over the city (and not just in touristy areas).
The problem you describe seems to be less "big brother" and more vigilante justice. I don't mean to slight my American friends (I'm half-American myself), but the news down there keeps people whipped into a constant state of anxiety (child abductions, terrorist attacks, illegal immigrants running across people's yards). Heck, even your president is a neo-Muslim-Marxist, non-citizen involved in a vast, decades longs conspiracy to...do something or other that's really bad. The irony of course is that people - North Americans in particular it seems - just love posting photos of themselves and their friends in all sorts of really compromising situations all over of the Internets, along with every scrap of personal information they can possibly type into their computer-machines. Lazy terrorists, kidnappers, etc., hardly need to do recon with a camera. All they need to do is use Google street view and join a dating site. And don't get me started on the security cameras that are going up all over the place (including here in Toronto). People on both sides of the border rail against the government further encroaching into our lives, but then demand that very same government keep us safe from any and all harm that could possibly befall us. Consistency, people! (Please - all of this is meant in gentle jest).
The problem you describe seems to be less "big brother" and more vigilante justice. I don't mean to slight my American friends (I'm half-American myself), but the news down there keeps people whipped into a constant state of anxiety (child abductions, terrorist attacks, illegal immigrants running across people's yards). Heck, even your president is a neo-Muslim-Marxist, non-citizen involved in a vast, decades longs conspiracy to...do something or other that's really bad. The irony of course is that people - North Americans in particular it seems - just love posting photos of themselves and their friends in all sorts of really compromising situations all over of the Internets, along with every scrap of personal information they can possibly type into their computer-machines. Lazy terrorists, kidnappers, etc., hardly need to do recon with a camera. All they need to do is use Google street view and join a dating site. And don't get me started on the security cameras that are going up all over the place (including here in Toronto). People on both sides of the border rail against the government further encroaching into our lives, but then demand that very same government keep us safe from any and all harm that could possibly befall us. Consistency, people! (Please - all of this is meant in gentle jest).
dovi
Well-known
Pablito
coco frío
That's one approach. I never apologize but I always explain. "Explaining" has led to many images I could not have gotten otherwise. Currently working on an inner-city urban project and almost always those who come up to me with the fiercest challenge turn out to be gentle as lambs. Put your "rights" as a photographer in your back pocket and talk to folks is my advice. Evoke your rights, and the law, only when absolutely necessary.
robklurfield
eclipse
explaining is good, but doesn't always work. some folks don't want to understand and are not susceptible to reason.
Pablito
coco frío
Re: China.
Just don't take any photos of soldiers in the T.A.R. Unless you are SURE they won't notice.
Just don't take any photos of soldiers in the T.A.R. Unless you are SURE they won't notice.
Pablito
coco frío
Yes, that is true as well. You develop an instinct. But "killing with kindness" will get you a long way.
gb hill
Mentor
bsdunek
Old Guy with a Corgi
YES! Excellent observation.
Ken Shipman
Well-known
LOL. You mean suspicious as in taking snaps at a farmer's market? And how does a tourist provide proof of residence? Your sense of due process is exceeded only by your sense of humor.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I strongly disagree with the latter. I carry a few of these in my bag. On the rare occasions when I've been bothered. I give them out. I politely explain that the law is quite clear, that I have a right to do what I am doing, and that the law trumps local or private rules.
gb hill
Mentor
I assume the Arizona bit was because of the recent immigration legislation! i don't see any other reason why you mentioned it.
As for a tourist...have you ever heard of a drivers license, passport, or ID card? My son can't drive a car because of seizers but had to get a ID card.
rolleistef
Well-known
I remember thinking "how lucky the brits are, there's no such thing as a ban against taking photos of people in the streets". Then 2005 turned up and I now feel lucky to live in France...
archive59
Established
Keep in mind that the situation is complicated in the UK by the Police use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to stop photographers.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
Also remember that the pocket knife they discover in your bag you use for trimming the film leader (and pulling stones from horses hooves) will be considered an offensive weapon and with a 'zero tolerance' approach certainly across London, you will be charged with possessing that if nothing else.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/
Also remember that the pocket knife they discover in your bag you use for trimming the film leader (and pulling stones from horses hooves) will be considered an offensive weapon and with a 'zero tolerance' approach certainly across London, you will be charged with possessing that if nothing else.
ferider
Mentor
Odd, seems we have gone full circle: paranoia about being photographed leads to the taking of a "street" photo (albeit by cell phone) ..
wgerrard
Mentor
We've hashed through this subject umpteen times here. This is what I've concluded:
1. Governments can ban photography on government property.
2. Owners of private property can stipulate that photography is not permitted.
3. if you are on public property and can see it, you can photograph it, even if "it" is on private property. (Although you might have a case on your hands if you point a 400mm lens into the window of, say, the local bank.)
4. People who do not want to be photographed do not care about the law or a photographer's rights.
I said private property owners can "stipulate" no photography rather than "ban" it because I suspect their power to ban photography varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Legitimate rights to take pictures will not be preserved by complaining online, or, contrary to many assertions here, by simply exercising that right. Establishing the right to pursue photography is going to take lawsuits. Someone is going to have to go to court after being prevented from taking a photo, and hope that the case moves sufficiently far enough along the judicial food chain that an appellate court makes a ruling that sets precedence. The fact that many private property owners attempt to ban photography, but seem not to enforce that ban against cellphone users, while chasing down people holding actual cameras, seems to me an inconsistency that might be exploited. For example, either the local mall stops mom and pop from snapping cellphone pix of the kids, or it lets the guy with the SLR or the Leica shoot away, too.
1. Governments can ban photography on government property.
2. Owners of private property can stipulate that photography is not permitted.
3. if you are on public property and can see it, you can photograph it, even if "it" is on private property. (Although you might have a case on your hands if you point a 400mm lens into the window of, say, the local bank.)
4. People who do not want to be photographed do not care about the law or a photographer's rights.
I said private property owners can "stipulate" no photography rather than "ban" it because I suspect their power to ban photography varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Legitimate rights to take pictures will not be preserved by complaining online, or, contrary to many assertions here, by simply exercising that right. Establishing the right to pursue photography is going to take lawsuits. Someone is going to have to go to court after being prevented from taking a photo, and hope that the case moves sufficiently far enough along the judicial food chain that an appellate court makes a ruling that sets precedence. The fact that many private property owners attempt to ban photography, but seem not to enforce that ban against cellphone users, while chasing down people holding actual cameras, seems to me an inconsistency that might be exploited. For example, either the local mall stops mom and pop from snapping cellphone pix of the kids, or it lets the guy with the SLR or the Leica shoot away, too.
aizan
Mentor
there are several things to think about.
1) how to deal with paranoid members of the citizenry. should you try to educate them? how do you qualm their fears and diffuse the situation?
2) how to deal with rent-a-cops, who may be overstepping their boundaries. what is the best way to assert your rights? what really is the culture behind rent-a-cops?
3) how to deal with police officers. i guess you really have to know the law in this case!
is there an organization that helps photographers cope with this anti-photography culture?
1) how to deal with paranoid members of the citizenry. should you try to educate them? how do you qualm their fears and diffuse the situation?
2) how to deal with rent-a-cops, who may be overstepping their boundaries. what is the best way to assert your rights? what really is the culture behind rent-a-cops?
3) how to deal with police officers. i guess you really have to know the law in this case!
is there an organization that helps photographers cope with this anti-photography culture?
wgerrard
Mentor
As I implied earlier, I don't think that's going to have much of an impact.
People who go ballistic about photography are very poor targets for education and persuasion. It's akin to road rage. When someone is trying to ram you with their pickup, that's not the time to talk to them about your right to be on the road.
Rent-a-cops do what they are told to do by the people who pay them. If the boss says stop people using cameras, that's what they will do.
Actual police are also paid to enforce the law.If they are told you can't take pictures, they will feel justified and obligated to keep you from taking pictures.
In all cases, people trying to stop you from taking pictures believe the law is on their side. The courts need to rule on the issue.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bll,
THAT'S the time to be driving an old Land Rover Series III with tree-sliders on the sills...
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: